U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–223PDF 2013

THE FUTURE OF COAL: UTILIZING 

AMERICA’S ABUNDANT ENERGY RESOURCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 25, 2013 

Serial No. 113–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, July 25, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Chris Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Department 

of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director, Coal Utilization Research Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Mr. Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer, Western Research Institute .......

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 55 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 57 

Ms. Judi Greenwald, Vice President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 96 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 98 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 104

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Chris Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 118 

Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director, Coal Utilization Research Council ...... 134 

Mr. Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer, Western Research Institute .............. 139 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted letter for the record by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 154 
Page

IV 

Department of Energy’s International Energy Outlook charts submitted by 

Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 157 
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF COAL: 

UTILIZING AMERICA’S 

ABUNDANT ENERGY RESOURCES 

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.A 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Chairman LUMMIS. Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The Future of Coal: Utilizing America’s Abundant Energy Resources.’’ And now the Subcommittee on Energy will come to order. 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures of today’s witness 

panel. I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement 

and then I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Mr. Swalwell. 

Thank you all for being here, and we will have others trickling in 

as the morning goes on. 

Coal is of critical importance to the United States. From Thomas 

Edison’s construction of the world’s first electric power plant in 

1892, through today, coal has led the way in enabling the enormous improvements to Americans’ health and well-being. It remains our leading source of affordable and reliable electricity, providing a foundation for our national and economic security while 

directly supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and powering industrial facilities that produce the inexpensive goods we too often 

take for granted so middle- and lower-income Americans can enjoy 

a higher standard of living and make their hard-earned dollars go 

farther. 

Rarely, however, has such a beneficial, life-improving resource 

upon which society depends been under such hostile attack. Adding 

injury to insult, this attack is being led by our own President. In 

2008, President Obama boasted on the campaign trail that his policies would necessarily bankrupt any company that wanted to build 

a coal-fired power plant. 

Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that the President 

appears determined to keep. Not only are his EPA power plant regulations effectively prohibiting new coal plants from being constructed, they are imposing massive costs on existing plants and 

forcing scores of shutdowns. For example, 288 coal units in 32 

states cited current and pending EPA regulations as a factor contributing to their expected closure. 

Senior members of the Obama Administration have readily acknowledged the negative impacts of these policies. For example, 

former DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Jim 

Wood estimated that EPA rules could force up to—excuse me—that 

EPA rules could force up to 70 gigawatts of coal offline, adding: 

‘‘Number one, electric rates are going to go up. Number two, 

whether or not construction jobs in the green industry are created, 

I think there are virtually no manufacturing jobs that are likely to 

be created from the replacement of coal. Three, transmission grid 

stability is likely to emerge as a major issue, both because of the 

shutdowns and because of the intermittency of renewables.’’ 

EPA is just one agency leading the war on coal. On Tuesday, the 

House Natural Resources Committee discussed the Department of 

Interior’s anti-coal regulations that would restrict coalmining activities and result in thousands of lost jobs in the coalmining industry. 

Incredibly, the President is even attempting to limit the global 

use of coal by restricting international aid for it in developing countries, thus limiting access to the primary means through which 

those countries’ citizens escape poverty. 
12 

Even if the President were successful in his quest to eliminate 

all U.S. coal-fired power plants, any potential reductions in projected global warming would more than undertaken by global emission growth. China continues to build a coal plant a week, and 

global coal demand is projected to continue to grow significantly 

over the next half century, regardless of U.S. domestic policy. 

The purpose of today’s hearing, and the challenge before us in 

this Subcommittee, is to apply these regulatory, economic and global realities to improve the focus and prioritization of DOE’s coal related activities. To this end, I look forward to hearing more about 

the recently developed coal R&D roadmap and how it could help 

identify technology opportunities to increase efficiencies, reduce 

pollutants, minimize water consumption, and lower the cost of electricity. 

I am also eager to examine in more detail the truly innovative 

research underway at the Western Resources Institute in Wyoming. WRI serves as a model of how to bring together public, private and academic stakeholders to advance development and use of 

abundant and affordable energy supplies. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS

Good morning and welcome to this morning’s hearing titled The Future of Coal: 

Utilizing America’s Abundant Energy Resources. 

Coal is of critical importance to the United States. Since the founding of our country, through Thomas Edison’s construction of the world’s first electric power plant 

in 1892, and continuing still today, coal has led the way in enabling the enormous 

improvements to Americans’ health and well-being. It remains our leading source 

of affordable and reliable electricity, providing a foundation for our national and economic security while directly supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and 

powering industrial facilities that produce the inexpensive goods we too often take 

for granted. 

Rarely, however, has such a beneficial, life-improving resource upon which society 

depends been under such hostile attack. 

Adding injury to insult, this attack is being led by our own President. In 2008, 

President Obama boasted on the campaign trail that his policies would ‘‘necessarily 

bankrupt’’ any company that wanted to build a coal-fired power plant. 

Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that the President appears determined to keep. Not only are his EPA power plant regulations effectively prohibiting 

new coal plants from being constructed, they are imposing massive costs on existing 

plants and forcing scores of shutdowns. For example, 288 coal units in 32 states 

cited current and pending EPA regulations as a factor contributing to their expected 

closure. 

Senior members of the Obama Administration have readily acknowledged the negative impacts of these policies. For example, in 2011, then-DOE Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Fossil Energy Jim Wood estimated that up to EPA rules could force 

up to 70 gigawatts of coal offline, adding: 

‘‘Number one, electric rates are going to go up. Number two, whether or not construction jobs in the green industry are created, I think there are virtually no 

manufacturing jobs that are likely to be created from the replacement of coal. 

Three . transmission grid stability is likely to emerge as a major issue, both because of the shutdowns and because of the intermittency of renewables.’’ 

EPA is just one agency leading the war on coal. On Tuesday, the House Natural 

Resources Committee discussed the Department of Interior’s anti-coal regulations 

that would restrict coal mining activities and result in thousands of lost jobs in the 

coal mining industry. 

Incredibly, the President is even attempting to limit the global use of coal by restricting international aid for it in developing countries, thus limiting access to the 

primary means through which those countries’ citizens escape poverty. 

Even if the President were successful in his quest to eliminate all U.S. coal-fired 

power plants, any potential reductions to projected global warming would more than 
13 

overtaken by global emissions growth. China continues to build a coal plant a week 

and global coal demand is projected to continue to grow significantly over the next 

half century, regardless of U.S. domestic policy. 

The purpose of today’s hearing—and the challenge before us in this Subcommittee—is to apply these regulatory, economic, and global realities to improve 

the focus and prioritization of DOE’s coal related activities. To this end, I look forward to hearing more about the recently developed coal R&D roadmap and how it 

could help identify technology opportunities to increase efficiencies, reduce pollutants, minimize water consumption, and lower the cost of electricity. 

I am also eager to examine in more detail the truly innovative research underway 

at the Western Resources Institute in Wyoming. WRI serves as a model of how to 

bring together public, private and academic stakeholders to advance development 

and use of abundant and affordable energy supplies. 

Thank you, and I now yield to Ranking Member Swalwell for his opening statement. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thanks, and I now yield to Ranking Member 

Swalwell for his opening statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, and first, I ask 

unanimous consent that Ranking Member Johnson of the Full 

Committee, that her opening statement be entered into the record. 

She will not be able to be here today but has been a leader in this 

area, and I hope the Committee will accept that. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Accepted. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing today. I would also like 

to thank all the witnesses for coming in to discuss the future role of coal in the 

United States. 

I am pleased, in particular, to welcome Ms. Judi Greenwald, who will be able to 

tell us more about some important projects in the great State of Texas—where we 

have seen the value of coal energy, but also its negative impacts. 

Coal has been an abundant and important source of energy through much of our 

Nation’s history, and that is why I support the Department of Energy’s efforts to 

make our use of coal cleaner and more efficient even as we lay the foundation for 

a more sustainable energy future. 

I am not here to promote one industry over another. Instead, I believe we must 

promote policies that protect our environment, meet our energy needs, and keep 

Americans working. 

We must do more than just keep the lights on. We need to work towards an energy future that recognizes that our environment is changing, in part due to our 

past energy usage. 

Record droughts and severe storms are sadly becoming too common, but I and 

many of my colleagues here today stand determined to do everything we can to curb 

the man-made causes of climate change and give our future generations a sense of 

environmental security while still providing them with a strong economy. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on what we are doing, and 

what still needs to be done, to ensure that our mature coal industry follows the lead 

of our vibrant renewable energy sector in developing the environmentally responsible energy sources of today, and tomorrow. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, I also wanted to thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today, and I am pleased also to welcome Ms. Judi Greenwald 

from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a group that 

does a lot of work in Texas, the home state of our Full Committee 

Chairman Mr. Smith, our Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, and my 

colleague on this Subcommittee, Mr. Veasey, and Mr. Veasey will 

introduce Ms. Greenwald in a moment. 
14 

This morning before I came over here, I had some students in my 

office, just part of a constituent thing that we do about a couple 

times a month, and they asked where I was going and I told them 

I was going to this hearing on coal, and these are students from 

my district. They kind of had this puzzling look on their face, and 

I said yes, that is right, coal. You know, I know you are from California, we don’t necessarily rely upon coal as our energy resource 

but the rest of the country and many places does, and I explained 

to them that we are at this point right now in our country where 

we are in a struggle and a pull, and we are trying to figure out 

where are we going to provide, how are we going to provide the future of our energy needs, and in California, we are proud that 20 

percent of our electricity in 2009, the last study that was available, 

was provided by renewables. And so California has always seen 

ourselves as kind of leading the country forward and moving away 

from dirty fossil fuels that could hurt the environment and not be 

so good for our children or the future. But coal does have a place 

to play, and I am interested and have always agreed that the allof-the-above approach is the way we should go, and wherever we 

can make it safe, we should make it happen, and I support the 

chair’s interest in doing this. 

But I say that what the President talked about a couple weeks 

back with climate change was not a war on coal. In fact, I saw it 

as the opposite. I saw it as a retreat from coal, not a war on coal 

but an attempt for the United States to eventually one day hopefully pull out of coal and pull closer to more renewable, cleaner energy sources, and that is what I support. But until that day comes, 

I will continue to work with our chair to find a future of coal that 

is clean and good for our environment, and we should not ignore 

the possibilities available today as we continue to move and strive 

for the fuels of tomorrow. And programs like the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative demonstrate their innovative capabilities of a mature coal industry that has long enjoyed Federal 

support. Carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery are 

examples of important technologies that will help ensure that our 

present reliance on coal will not hinder our ability to move towards 

a cleaner, safer environment. These advances also support Americans working in these industries today, even as we lay the foundation for emerging energy technologies that will support the workforce of the future. 

So I look forward to working with you, Chair, on doing this, hearing from our witnesses and making progress in this area, and with 

that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER ERIC SWALWELL

Thank you, Chairman Lummis, for holding this hearing. I want to also thank the 

witnesses for their testimony and for being here to answer our questions today. I 

am pleased to welcome Ms. Judi Greenwald, from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a group that does a lot of work in Texas, the home state of our Full 

Committee Chairman Mr. Smith, our Ranking Member Ms. Johnson, and my colleague on this Subcommittee, Mr. Veasey. 

This hearing is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of a true ‘‘all-of-theabove’’ approach to energy production, which has to include taking the necessary 

steps to make existing fuel technologies cleaner and more efficient. I am a strong 

supporter of the policies that have helped my state of California see growth in the 
15 

solar and wind energy sectors, which provide clean energy to millions while meeting 

the job demands of a growing workforce. However, we should not ignore the possibilities available today as we move towards the fuels of tomorrow. 

Programs like the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative demonstrate the innovative capabilities of a mature coal industry that has long enjoyed federal support. Carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery are examples of important technologies that will help ensure that our present reliance on coal will not 

hinder our ability to move towards a cleaner, safer environment. These advances 

also support Americans working in these industries today, even as we lay the foundation for emerging energy technologies that will support the workforce of the future. 

I look forward to learning more from our witnesses about progress being made 

in this area, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

We have not seen the chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Smith, come in. We have accepted the statement of the Ranking 

Member of the Full Committee. If there are Members who wish to 

submit additional opening statements, your statements will be 

added to the record at this point. Thank you. We will begin then. 

I would like to introduce our witnesses, and I will defer to Mr. 

Veasey when he arrives—excellent. Your opportunity to introduce 

Ms. Greenwald will be occurring shortly. 

Our first witness toady is Chris Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy. Mr. Smith 

was appointed in 2009 as Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy’s 

Office of Oil and Natural Gas. Prior to joining DOE, Mr. Smith 

spent 11 years with international oil companies focused on upstream business development and LNG trading. 

Our second witness is Ben Yamagata. Did I get that right, Mr. 

Yamagata? 

Mr. YAMAGATA. Yes, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. Executive Director at the Coal 

Utilization Research Council. Mr. Yamagata is also a partner at 

Van Ness Feldman, where his practice encompasses energy, environment and natural resources. He has also served as Counsel and 

Staff Director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development. 

Our third witness is Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer at the 

Western Research Institute. Mr. Collins focuses on transitioning 

scientific and applied research into technologies. He has spent 29 

years of experience in engineering, management of research and 

deploying of new technologies. 

And for today’s final witness, Judi Greenwald, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and before I introduce 

Ms. Greenwald, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Mr. 

Smith is from Fort Worth, my hometown in Texas, just outside of 

Dallas, and I am happy to have him on the panel today, and I 

wanted to introduce Judi Greenwald. Judi is the Vice President for 

Technology and Innovation at the Center for Climate and Energy 

Solutions. She oversees very many important aspects of that organization including the analysis and promotion of innovation in the 

major sectors that contribute to climate change including transportation, electric power, buildings and industry. In addition to her 30 

years of working on environmental and energy policy, she also has 

a strong Texas connection and has worked with many organiza-
16 

tions and individuals in our great state, and I want to welcome her 

here this morning. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

And now we will go to our witnesses. As you may know, spoken 

testimony is limited to five minutes each after which the Members 

of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

We welcome you here today, Mr. Smith. You are recognized first 

to present your testimony. My favorite boot store in all of America 

is in Fort Worth, and we are delighted to have a good Fort Worth 

native amongst us. So Mr. Smith, you are now recognized for five 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CHRIS SMITH, 

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Lummis. Lots of Fort 

Worth references this morning, so I am happy with that. 

So thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member 

Swalwell and Members of the Subcommittee, and I appreciate this 

opportunity to discuss Department of Energy’s coal research and 

development activities. Recently, our Secretary, Secretary Ernie Moniz, announced an $8 

billion draft loan guarantee solicitation to promote the early development and deployment of innovative fossil energy projects that reduce carbon emissions. This solicitation in addition to the $6 billion 

the Obama Administration has already committed to clean coal 

technologies reflects the President’s commitment to an all-of-theabove strategy that embraces an energy mix of nuclear power, renewable energy sources and fossil fuel, including clean coal. 

The Department of Energy continues to play a leadership role in 

the development of clean coal technologies with a focus on carbon 

capture and storage, or CCS. The Clean Coal Research program, in 

partnership with the private sector, is focused on maximizing efficiency and environmental performance while minimizing the costs 

of these new technologies. In recent years, the program has been 

restructured to focus on clean coal technologies with carbon capture 

and sequestration. The program pursues the following two major 

strategies: first, capturing and storing greenhouse gases, and second, improving the efficiency of fossil energy systems. 

The Clean Coal Research program is addressing the key challenges that confront the development and deployment of clean coal 

technologies through research on cost-effective capture technologies, monitoring, verification and accounting technologies to ensure permanent storage and the development of advanced energy 

systems. To get there, we are pursuing these three technical pathways for carbon capture: post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxycombustion. Research in these pathways is exploring a wide range 

of approaches that, coupled with advances in efficiency improvements and cost reductions from developments in gasification turbines, will help provide a technology base for the commercial deployment of CCS technologies. 

On the storage side, we have pursued projects to develop and design innovative advanced technology and protocols for the moni-
17 

toring, verification, and accounting of CO2 storage in geologic formations as well as simulating the behavior of geologically stored 

CO2. Our original carbon sequestration partnerships are an essential component of that effort. The program is currently in the development phase during which large-scale field testing involving at 

least 1 million metric tons of CO2 per project will be implemented. 

Several of these large-scale tests are currently underway, and one 

project has safely injected over 3.6 million metric tons and is being 

monitored for safe and permanent storage. 

The Department is implementing large-scale projects for their regional partnerships, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, FutureGen 

2.0, and the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage program. We 

currently have eight major CCS demonstration projects nationwide, 

and there have been important advances in several of them. For 

example, the Archer Daniels Midland ICCS project in Illinois will 

demonstrate an integrated system of CCS in an ethanol production 

plant. The project is under construction and is nearly 50 percent 

complete. FutureGen 2.0 has successfully completed phase I, and 

phase II commenced in February of this year. The project is now 

focused on the preliminary design and engineering. 

Current demonstrations are focused on storing CO2 in a variety 

of geologic formations including enhanced oil recovery. Enhanced 

oil recovery represents the most commercially attractive utilization 

option for CO2 storage that could produce substantial quantities of 

oil while permanently storing CO2 in geologic formations. There are 

currently six projects employing CO2 EOR and two projects employing saline storage underway across the United States. And as with 

saline storage projects, CO2 EOR projects will be subject to rigorous 

monitoring, verification, accounting procedures, and technologies to 

ensure their safety and effectiveness. 

Today, nearly three out of four coal-burning power plants in this 

country are equipped with technologies that can trace their roots 

back to the Department of Energy’s advanced coal technology program. The Office of Fossil Energy’s ongoing mission is to ensure 

that this important resource can be developed and utilized in an 

environmentally sensible way to strengthen our Nation’s energy security, and I believe that our Clean Coal Research program demonstrates that we have the critical experience, expertise and capabilities, and the track record to meet this challenge. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, that completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

I now recognize Mr. Yamagata to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN YAMAGATA, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Mr. YAMAGATA. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Swalwell, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity 

to make these comments today. I will specifically focus my comments on the two subject areas you asked me to address by discussing four points.First, in describing to you, as you requested, 

our coal technology development roadmap done in conjunction with 

the Electric Power Research Institute, let me say we concluded that 

we can develop technologies that will achieve very high conversion 

efficiencies moving electricity generation from today’s high of 39 or 

40 percent to nearly 50 percent. Following the same roadmap agenda will result in significant reductions in traditional air pollutants, 

leading ultimately to coal-fueled plants that really today are very 

clean but will be nearly emissions-free in the future. Since the 

1970s, the DOE’s coal R&D program and the work of the National 

Energy Technology Lab in collaboration with industry has, as the 

Assistant Secretary pointed out, now been installed on many of the 

coal units in this country. With DOE’s support, we are confident 

that technology will be the pathway to also addressing CO2 emissions from the use of coal. 

Second, you have asked if our roadmap might be a way of examining the prioritization of DOE’s R&D activities. Let me start by 

stating our general agreement with DOE’s R&D portfolio and note 

industry’s successful collaboration with the Fossil Energy Office. 

Where we see need for added emphasis, CCS should not be the singular focus of the government’s R&D supported efforts. We recommend an emphasis also on technology development to address 

water use and discharge from power plants and increased support 

for high-temperature-materials development. These advanced materials are key to increasing the efficiency of coal conversion to 

electricity. DOE may need to focus more attention now on technologies that are truly transformational, and that move beyond 

simply adding a series of improved control technologies to power 

plant platforms that generate electricity from power-generating 

technology now itself several decades old. And finally, an inquiry 

should be made whether the pace of technology development pursued by DOE fits the age profile of the country’s existing coal fleet. 

We might require commercially available technology for retrofit of 

coal units or the replacement of coal units by the early 2020s so 

that technology can be used in the later 2020s or 2030s. DOE’s 

technology timelines could be too late by several years. Also, the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 coal R&D budget request is nearly 

$100 million less than what we believe is required. 

Third, the added cost of new and pending environmental regulations, uncertainty over future regulations and market competition 

from abundant natural gas have led to projections that perhaps 60 

to 80 gigawatts of older coal plants—that is 20 to 25 percent of the 

existing fleet—will be retired in the next several years. Anticipated 

CO2 requirements could dramatically increase the number of those 
32 

requirements. CURC has commented that the original EPA CO2

proposal for new coal plants requiring those plants to meet a defined CO2 standard that can only be met with the installation of 

carbon capture technology that is not commercially available nor 

economic today, this is not a realistic standard. We will await the 

re-proposal of this rule, but if it is still predicated upon technology 

that is not commercially available, our concerns remain. Simply directing or assuming the existence of technology will not make it so. 

And point four, you asked that we comment upon research activities that should be pursued in the near, mid and long term. CURC 

is developing a three-part program that is organized around the 

proposition that technology development is a positive pathway to 

the sustained and increased use of coal but our program is being 

developed through the prism of defining benefits to the Nation from 

coal use. In the near term, we are considering recommendations to 

undertake the technology R&D to address challenges to the existing baseload fleet, which is now a cycling fleet, while simultaneously confronting ever-more stringent air regulations. In the medium term, we need to ensure that the DOE demonstrations currently underway are successful. An additional demonstration program is needed to encourage the construction of world-class, coalfueled generation plants meeting very high efficiency and emission 

control standards and committing those projects to retrofit with 

carbon capture technology when that technology is commercially 

available. Also, we would recommend a program to use captured 

CO2 from coal-using facilities for enhanced oil recovery. We are 

looking for ways to accomplish our mid-term program without new 

government spending. Progress is being made on this front. And finally, in the long term, government in partnership with industry 

needs to pursue a targeted R&D program. 

Thank you for your time, and I will await your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yamagata follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Yamagata. 

I now recognize Mr. Collins for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DON COLLINS, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

WESTERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. COLLINS. Good morning, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Don Collins 

from the Western Research Institute located in Laramie, Wyoming. 

On behalf of everyone at WRI, we deeply appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the vital role of innovative scientific 

research and technology development that can assure a diverse energy resource portfolio that utilizes our Nation’s abundant coal resources efficiently and environmentally responsibly. 

WRI is a multidisciplinary scientific research and technology development nonprofit institute currently specializing in bioenergy, 

natural gas, emission capture, environmental monitoring and remediation, asphalt chemistry, heavy and ultra-heavy oils such as Canadian oil sands, as well as clean coal power, gasification and conversion to transportation fuels, hydrogen and industrial chemicals. 

So I will summarize my testimony and request that my testimony 

be entered into the record. 

Our view is that R&D work is successful when viable technologies are deployed to the betterment of our country. So in my 

written testimony, I highlight opportunities to utilize carbon to 

achieve energy recycling for living in a carbon-rich world: utilize 

low-rank coal as an untapped water-rich resource, increase plant 

efficiencies to lower emissions of hazardous air pollutants and 

lower water consumption, leverage existing coal power plant investments to also clean up eco-legacy contamination levels such as for 

mercury, create a diversified energy technology portfolio to best 

serve very local conditions, and resource availability across the 

United States. 

Based on WRI’s experience and expertise, I recommend that Congress take some of the following actions: consider policies that 

allow exploring solutions for living in a carbon-rich world in addition to living in a carbon-constrained world; cultivate a national 

best portfolio strategy to leverage all energy resources and utilization technologies; formulate a flexible, integrated clean energy technology research portfolio and priorities that consider local and regional constraints; allocate funding to support the utilization of carbon dioxide to stimulate the transformation of this abundant compound from something to be avoided to a beneficial resource that 

can be used to increase chemical feedstocks, biofuels and support 

national energy self-sufficiency; allocate resources for research to 

support the sustainable and environmental safe use of fossil fuels, 

especially energy and water efficiency advancements in connection 

with the energy-water nexus; formulate a Federal leadership team 

to strategically plan advanced energy and water efficiency improvements and environmental impact reductions across the entire coal 

sector. 

In summary, at WRI, we take a portfolio approach to provide 

sustainable energy solutions. Our thinking approach will deliver 

cost efficiencies and environmental benefits with respect to utiliza-
56 

tion of coal. The many boom-and-bust cycles that we have experienced in the energy sector really are a function of the marketplace, 

but the way in which we can minimize the downside of this fact 

of life is through an aggressive, innovative partnership between industry, research entities and the Federal and state governments. 

This will ensure our energy technology portfolio will deliver benefits to the U.S. consumers and protect the environment. 

I would note, for example, that the State of Wyoming is implemented a long-term strategic plan to maximize the entire energy 

portfolio within Wyoming, utilizing CO2 for enhanced oil recovery 

and preparing for long-term storage of CO2. These are precisely the 

kind of activities the Federal Government should encourage. Making the best use of limited financial investments in addition to efficient utilization of all energy resources is key to achieving national 

sustainability goals, energy security and economic prosperity. 

In closing, a strong commitment to a portfolio approach that includes solutions for living in a carbon-rich world will facilitate innovation and sustainable economic growth that in turn strengthens 

U.S. competitiveness. This necessitates continued Federal funding 

of scientific research and technological development. It is essential 

to maximize the energy efficiency and productivity of our country 

in the most environmentally and economically sustainable ways. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and 

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Collins. 

And now I recognize Ms. Greenwald to present her testimony. 

Good morning. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. JUDI GREENWALD, VICE PRESIDENT, 

CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS 

Ms. GREENWALD. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Congressman 

Swalwell, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Congressman Veasey, for that 

kind introduction. 

My name is Judi Greenwald, and I am the Vice President for 

Technology and Innovation at the Center for Climate and Energy 

Solutions. My testimony today will focus on the most important climate and energy solution that no one knows about. I will emphasize two main points. 

First, carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is a critical technology 

for addressing climate change while allowing continued reliance on 

fossil fuels. Second, carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery, or CO2

EOR, can advance CCS while boosting domestic oil production and 

creating and generating that Federal revenue. 

The United States and the rest of the world get 80 percent of our 

energy from coal, oil and gas, and our fossil fuel dependence is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Carbon dioxide emissions from burning these fuels pose an enormous challenge. That 

is why we need CCS, a suite of technologies that capture CO2 and 

stores it deep underground in geological formations. CCS can capture up to 90 percent of emissions from power plant and industrial 

facilities, allowing coal and natural gas to remain part of our energy mix. CCS has been commercialized for certain industrial processes. However, CCS in other contexts, for example, coal and natural gas power plants is a relatively expensive technology that is 

just reaching maturity. The key challenge for CCS is to get a sufficient number of commercial-scale projects up and running to demonstrate the emerging technologies at scale and bring down their 

costs. 

The Department of Energy’s role in CCS development has been 

and will remain critical. DOE is working with the private sector on 

the leading innovative CCS projects today including several coalbased power projects. Additional drivers will be needed, though, to 

help the next generation of CCS projects move forward. That is 

why CCS is being increasingly thought of as carbon capture utilization and storage, or CCUS. 

Utilizing captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, or 

CO2 EOR, could play a key role in the development of CCS. It also 

has the potential to increase American oil production by tens of billions of barrels while displacing imported oil and safely storing billions of tons of carbon emissions underground. 

Let me explain how this works. Even after conventional primary 

and secondary oil recovery, most of the oil in a typical field is left 

in the ground. Injecting carbon dioxide deep underground can make 

it possible to recover more oil and extend the field’s life. The 

United States has been a global leader in CO2 EOR for 40 years, 

and gets six percent of its domestic oil this way. While most CO2

EOR activities occur in the Permian Basin of Texas, there are also 
97 

projects in Wyoming, the Gulf Coast, Oklahoma and Michigan. 

Using existing technologies, CO2 EOR could double or triple U.S. 

reserves. It could also store 10 to 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 

equivalent to five to ten years. worth of emissions from all U.S. 

coal-fired power plants. More advanced technologies could yield 

much higher production and CO2 storage. 

Right now, most enhanced oil recovery is done using carbon dioxide that is already underground and that is ironically in short supply. By using captured manmade carbon dioxide, we can increase 

domestic oil production, promote economic development, create 

jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and drive innovation in CCS technology. Because of these multiple benefits, we have been able to 

bring together the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, or 

NEORI, a diverse coalition of industry, labor and environmental organization, and state officials. This coalition’s consensus recommendations call for a Federal tax incentive to capture manmade 

CO2 for EOR. 

In some regions, EOR operators are willing to pay upwards of 

$30 per ton for CO2. At the same time, industrial facilities and 

power plants are emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as a waste. CO2 EOR offers the opportunity to transform this 

waste into a marketable commodity and transform an environmental problem into an energy production solution. By combining 

private EOR operators willing to pay for CO2 with a tax incentive, 

society would leverage its public investment. Tax incentives for carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery would more than pay for themselves within ten years by increasing domestic oil production and 

associated taxable oil revenues. Federal revenue would exceed the 

fiscal cost of new incentives by more than $100 billion over 40 

years. 

To summarize, CCS is a critical technology for reconciling our 

continued dependence on fossil fuels with the imperative to protect 

the global climate. Our best hope at the moment for advancing 

CCS is carbon capture utilization and storage, or CCUS, and the 

best current example of that is enhanced oil recovery. Solving our 

climate and energy problems will require a portfolio of technologies, 

and all must be pursued vigorously. But we are focusing here today 

on CO2 EOR because it is the most important climate and energy 

solution that no one knows about. 

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions 

and to working with the Subcommittee and the Congress to advance this critical technology. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenwald follows:] 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Ms. Greenwald, and thank you, 

panel. 

Now, if we would limit our questions to four minutes each, we 

could probably—everybody in this room could get to ask questions 

before our vote series. If there is no objection to going with four 

minutes instead of five, then so ordered, and we will start—the 

Chair now recognizes herself for four minutes. Thank you, panel, 

for being here. I am going to start with Mr. Collins. 

In your testimony, you talked about integrated portfolio approaches to maximize benefits of coal. Could you tell us which of 

those technologies you believe are the most promising to improve 

energy utilization? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, Madam Chairman. We have a process called 

WRITECoal that will extract the water out of low-rank coals that 

in the past has really been a missed opportunity. Low-rank coal, 

especially out of Wyoming, has been beneficial for reducing sulfur 

emissions because of its low sulfur content, and the water has just 

gone up the smokestack along with other emissions. By extracting 

that water at the front end, we can utilize that water in the power 

plant and reduce local water consumption in communities that are 

water stressed by about 50 to 60 percent for the makeup water, especially in air-cooled systems. So we see that as a second value of 

low-rank coals that were delivering water with the energy resource. 

A second technology is a chemoautotrophic bacterial process that 

will operate in the dark 24 hours a day to consume CO2 and make 

a bio crude oil that can be used to make synthetic diesel fuel, for 

instance, and perhaps even other longer-chain carbon molecules 

like biopharmaceuticals and turn that carbon in our coal into an 

additional economic resource by using it more than once, and that 

is our view to look at recycling energy. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Collins. 

Now, Mr. Yamagata and Ms. Greenwald, I have a question about 

the fossil energy loan guarantees, and they were—monies were directed under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to advance technologies 

and facilitate commercial application. Four projects were selected 

for further evaluation in July of 2009, and to date, no final loan 

guarantees have been issued. Your groups have focused in part on 

these loan guarantees and their status. To your knowledge, where 

are they in the DOE process? Mr. Yamagata, any response there? 

Mr. YAMAGATA. Madam Chair, frankly, I don’t know where they 

are. We know that the process that was started several years ago 

in which DOE actually accepted—because that is the process, the 

applications—and the DOE at least as we understand it, the Secretary or his designee can stop that process at any point in time 

but we don’t know that that has ever happened with respect to 

those four projects. So the answer at least in short is, we are not 

quite certain where those projects are. They don’t appear to have 

been rejected. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Ms. Greenwald, do you know? 

Ms. GREENWALD. We don’t know either. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, I might ask, has DOE taken any steps to advance 

these projects? 
105 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman. So 

I manage the Office of Fossil Energy, which oversees all the research and development that is done to advance fossil energy technologies. I don’t have oversight over the loan guarantee program. 

I do know that the projects that were selected in that first round 

focused primarily on CTL technologies. We have recently announced an additional level of funding of $8 billion, which is another series of potential loan guarantees that would have a very 

wide range of applications for fossil energy technologies. We have 

taken the unprecedented step of offering that for public comment 

so we can get feedback back from industry, back from states, back 

from key stakeholders so that we can structure that in a way that 

has the highest probability of attracting the right type of participants and make sure that we are successful moving that forward. 

So that is the process that we are pushing for in real time right 

now. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, panel. 

And now I yield four minutes to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

For our witnesses, it is pretty evident now after a number of scientific studies that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activities are causing climate change, and so I want to ask each one 

of you whether you agree or disagree with the 97 percent of scientists who believe in that. 

Mr. Smith, do you agree or disagree? 

Mr. SMITH. We agree that most of our programs are focused very 

strictly on reducing CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. But do you agree that climate change is caused 

by human activities? 

Mr. SMITH. We do agree that this is something we need to address, so we agree. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Yamagata, agree or disagree? 

Mr. YAMAGATA. You are not going to like this answer. We 

don’t—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Is it agree or disagree? 

Mr. YAMAGATA. We don’t take a position on that issue. It is not 

something that we want to deal with. What we want to deal with 

is if public policy determines that this is an issue, we have got to 

have the technologies available to address it. 

Mr. SWALWELL. How about you personally, Mr. Yamagata? Do 

you agree or disagree? 

Mr. YAMAGATA. I think there is a lot of information out there 

that suggests so. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Collins, do you agree or disagree? 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Congressman Swalwell. I would say 

you probably won’t like my answer either. There are multiple contributions to what people consider climate change, and it is not all 

just man made anthropogenic sources. So that statement, in my 

mind, is incomplete, so that is why I cannot agree to the question. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you agree that human activity has played a 

role, a substantial role, in climate change? 

Mr. COLLINS. Human activity releases a lot of energy into the environment that contributes to the warming, but I also view that 
106 

CO2 is an untapped resource and we need to start thinking about 

how we utilize that. We live in a carbon-rich world. You and I are 

carbon-based life forms. To consider living in a carbon-free world 

to me sounds like suicide. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And Ms. Greenwald, do you agree or agree with 

the 97 percent? 

Ms. GREENWALD. We agree. I focus on the technology solution 

side of our organization but we do have staff that focuses on 

science, and we do work in that area and do agree with the scientific consensus. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thanks, Ms. Greenwald. 

Mr. Smith, over the history of research to reduce the environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants and to improve their efficiency, where has the bulk of the innovation taken place? Has that 

been in the private sector or has it been at the national laboratories or our research universities? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, and without making 

a direct comparison, I would say that this is an area in which it 

is critical for the government to be involved. We work very closely 

with private industry in all the major demonstrations that we are 

pushing out. We need to ensure that we have got scientists that 

work in national laboratories working alongside the practitioners in 

the field in industry, so that is always going to be a collaborative 

effort. That is the only way to move forward. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And have Federal regulations played a role in 

incentivizing these innovations, and if so, how? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, first of all, I think it is important that we fund 

critical programs that allow us to do this work. If you look at the 

investments that we have made since the start of this Administration, we have made a significant investment in major demonstrations that came from the Recovery Act, and in every year of the 

President’s budget over the last several years, we have made important, significant investments in carbon capture and sequestration that fund that government programs and allow us to work together with industry. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great, and I will yield back in the interest of allowing more questions from our colleagues. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for four minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. 

Mr. Smith, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with greenhouse gas regulations on both new and existing 

coal-fired plants. In EPA’s initial regulatory proposal for new 

plants released last year, the EPA rulemaking assumed that CCS 

technology would be commercially available within ten years of 

plant initiating operations. Do you agree that with this new proposed rule, which I understand is now under revision, would have 

basically effectively banned the construction of new coal plants 

without CCS? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. I 

can’t comment on the rule as it has not yet been published. It is 

in interagency review at the moment, and that is a process that is 

being managed centrally. What I can say is that the Department 
107 

of Energy has an important role to play in terms of shaping that 

rule, and we believe it is critically important that we are working 

together with EPA and that we are working together with industry 

to ensure that these technologies are commercially ready, that they 

are being developed, that we are making the right investments, 

and that these innovations are created here in the United States 

so that we are creating that opportunity here for our country. So 

that is the role that the Department of Energy plays in that process. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, along those same lines, though, then 

would you agree that in order for CCS to be a part of the new coal 

plant that significant technical, legal, property rights and liability 

issues will have to be resolved? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, I agree that there are myriad issues 

that need to be resolved, and that is the process that we are in real 

time going through. This is an important innovation that will allow 

us to achieve this mission. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So then with that in mind, what is the earliest 

time frame in which you can state with confidence that CCS will 

be commercially available for utility scale? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Congressman, I would state that currently, 

we know an awful lot about how to capture CO2 and we know an 

awful lot about storing it. The work that we are going through 

right now is to ensure that we are continuing to push these costs 

down and that we are making it more and more affordable for 

broad-scale release. So I can’t make a projection in terms of what 

exactly that cost curve is going to look like, but that is the process 

of innovation that we are going through now and we are making 

important strides in real time in that mission. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So I guess the question goes back to kind of 

where I started. If we can’t get to that point, are we basically keeping new power plants from being brought online and potentially 

closing existing ones? The chairwoman mentioned some statistics of 

how many plants had been closed, so the vagueness of your answer 

leads me to believe that you are not sure whether this technology 

will be in place and that in fact would preclude bringing those 

plants online, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, coal is under stress from a number of factors 

including the emergence of natural gas that has pushed natural 

gas prices down, and natural gas has leapfrogged coal in a lot of 

areas in terms of how coal power plants get dispatched. That is a 

challenge, and it makes it difficult for these plants to move forward. What we are working on is making sure that we are not only 

focused on CCS, carbon capture and sequestration, and lowering 

those costs, but we are also working with industry to improve efficiencies, to improve processes, better sensors, better materials, to 

ensure that this important part of our energy mix continues to contribute to energy security in the future. It is—this is research activity. These are technological innovations. They don’t have certainty, just as any research topic tends not to, but we are making 

investments to ensure that we are moving that forward and we do 

have high levels of confidence. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So would this be a true statement, that this 

Administration is not a big fan of coal? 
108 

Mr. SMITH. I would say that is categorically not a true statement. 

I mean, if you look at the investment that we have made since this 

Administration started, almost $6 billion invested in CCS technologies, greater efficiencies, better materials, better processes, 

more efficient turbines. These are all investments that we have 

made to ensure that this important source of domestic energy— 

coal—continues to be part of the clean energy economy of the future. So when we say all of the above, I mean, that is not a slogan. 

It is an investment this Administration has made over the past 

four years. So I actually would not agree with that comment, respectfully, Mr. Congressman. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas and yield 

to another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, and it is Veasey, 

isn’t it? 

Mr. VEASEY. That is correct, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. You know, I had tee shirts made for my second campaign that said ‘‘Lummis rhymes with hummus’’ on them 

just because I got it to so much, so I suggest the tee shirt route, 

Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. 

Chairman LUMMIS. The gentleman is recognized for four minutes. 

Mr. VEASEY. I have done ‘‘Veasey is easy’’ before. 

And I wanted to ask Ms. Greenwald specifically if she could tell 

me a little bit more about her organization’s work with important 

carbon capture and storage and reuse projects in Port Arthur as 

well as Pinwale, and for those of you that aren’t from Texas, Port 

Arthur is a very important geographic area as it relates to energy 

and—— 

Mr. WEBER. And represented by the greatest Congressman in the 

world, I am just saying. 

Mr. VEASEY. That would be Mr. Weber. 

Ms. Greenwald, please. 

Ms. GREENWALD. Well, I am glad to talk about projects that are 

near and dear to both of your hearts. We were actually just in Port 

Arthur recently. We had a workshop for state and provincial officials from both the United States and Canada talking about CO2

EOR and its relationship to carbon capture and storage, and while 

we were there we did a site visit to the Air Products facility in Port 

Arthur, Texas, and that is a hydrogen production facility that is 

doing carbon capture, and they are using their CO2. They are sending it into a pipeline to be used for CO2 EOR. So it is a classic example of the kind of project that is really making a difference, moving ahead on carbon capture and also advancing our increasing 

U.S. oil production. So it is a great project. It is also getting DOE 

funding, so it is a huge DOE success as well. And so that has been 

a great project, and it just got up and running a few short months 

ago, and Air Products is also a member of our National Enhanced 

Oil Recovery Initiative group, and so they have been active in that 

as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. Good, good. Let me ask you about CCS, and, you 

know, how would you compare the need to support CCS with the 

need to support other energy sources such as renewable energy or 

nuclear power? And I think particularly with renewable energy and 
109 

that support going hand and hand because it is something that we 

really don’t, you know, talk about enough, and if we want to have 

a serious all-of-the-above approach, I think that we obviously need 

to. 

Ms. GREENWALD. You know, the way we think about this is, we 

think about a strategy. We might say all-of-the-above clean. We basically think that all of these technologies—nuclear power, renewables, efficiency, carbon capture and storage with gas or coal—all 

of the most promising technologies we should be working on both 

in the R&D level but also in deployment and encouraging them to 

be used more in the marketplace. So we recommend that we pursue a portfolio approach and make sure that we have a range of 

technologies that are available. For us, it is all about performance. 

If any particular fuel or technology can give the environmental performance that we need and the energy security benefits that we 

need, that is what we want to achieve. So we don’t come out and 

say this is the best technology. 

As I said in my testimony, though, the reason we have been focusing on CO2 EOR today and recently is that that is an example 

of a solution that a lot of people just don’t know about, but we do 

support looking all across the board and making sure that we are 

placing bets on the most promising technologies so that they will 

be available for broader use in the marketplace and encouraging 

the use of the cleanest and most energy beneficial projects in the 

marketplace. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Ms. Greenwald. I appreciate you answering those questions and I appreciate your work on these important energy and environmental issues. Thank you very much. 

Madam, I yield back the balance. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Veasey, and the chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massey. 

Mr. MASSEY. Before I ask my question, I just want to say that 

I have ‘‘friends of coal’’ plates on my car, and my car truly is a 

friend of coal. It got me here on time today because it is powered 

with coal. It is an electric car, and it is charged by coal power. So 

I am very excited about coal as an abundant resource here in the 

United States because it gives us the opportunity to have energy 

independence and releases us from some of these foreign entanglements. So I am very troubled by what looks like the Administration’s bias against coal, and I have been told by the engineers in 

my district, they just brought online in 2011 a super critical boiler 

unit. It is a state-of-the-art coal-fired facility at the Trimble County 

station, but they told me the other day that even though this thing 

qualified for clean energy tax credits and whatnot two years ago, 

today it would be illegal to build. They wouldn’t be able to build 

it because it doesn’t comply with the Administration’s rules that 

are going to be promulgated. 

Mr. Smith, could you tell me, is that correct? Would it be impossible to build a compliant coal station today without CCS technology? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. I 

can’t respond to the specific instance because I am not familiar 

with the plant or the details behind it, and—— 
110 

Mr. MASSEY. Would it be possible to build a coal plant without 

CCS technology that is compliant today? 

Mr. SMITH. Again, we are not the regulatory agency so, I mean, 

I really can’t answer questions that are specific to how the regulations operate. I can talk to the technology pathways that we are 

pursuing, our broad Administration goals, how we are working 

with EPA. I could address those points. 

Mr. MASSEY. Okay. Well, I will assume they were correct in stating that. 

Let me ask you a question then that maybe you can answer. I 

think we need to—because we are determining policy, we can’t base 

it on opinions. I am an engineer, and I believe that without facts, 

all you have is an opinion. So I am looking for facts and numbers 

here today. If the Earth has warmed because of human activity, 

can you tell me what percentage of that warming was due to anthropogenic causes? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Congressman, what I can say, you know, without 

getting into a detailed scientific discussion—— 

Mr. MASSEY. I am just looking for a number like a percentage. 

Mr. SMITH. What I can tell you is that we do believe the anthropogenic CO2 production, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 

are an important component of global warming and it is something 

that we do have to comprehensively address. 

Mr. MASSEY. That is an opinion. So let us take it into the realm 

of facts. What percent would you apply to anthropogenic causes? 

Mr. SMITH. Again, Mr. Congressman, I am not going to go 

through a peer review of scientific studies, and to select a number, 

I can’t say that it is comprehensively important. We could certainly 

provide your office with more detail. 

Mr. MASSEY. Well, I would love to see those facts, because every 

time somebody from the DOE comes here, we ask this question. We 

have never gotten an answer to that question. 

I do have another question that is based on math, and this is a 

little bit easier exercise. What is the percent cost increase in coal 

production, coal-produced electricity that you associate with CCS 

technology? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, right now we are looking at three, I guess, separate tranches in the way that we think about the implementation 

of CO2 technology. 

Mr. MASSEY. If it were ideally implemented, what would the additional costs be to a kilowatt-hour? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Congressman, it would depend on the state 

of the technology at the point of implementation. 

Mr. MASSEY. I think in your testimony notes, you said between 

35 and 70 percent. Is that a good range? 

Mr. SMITH. I think that would be a reasonable range. 

Mr. MASSEY. Okay. So let us say it is 50 percent, and if a middleclass family had a $200 electric bill in Kentucky, 50 percent of 

$200 is what? 

Mr. SMITH. That would be $100. 

Mr. MASSEY. Okay. So their electric bill would go from $200 to $300, and in 12 months they would have another $1,200 electric 

bill. Does the Administration—does the DOE care that this is going 

to push some people below the living standard and that more peo-
111 

ple may have to go on public assistance because of promulgating 

the carbon capture technology? 

Mr. SMITH. The point that the—the position that the DOE takes 

on this is that these are technologies that are going to be critical 

to be developed. Our job is to make sure that they are done in a 

way that is most cost-effective, that minimizes the impact on consumers, that ensures that clean coal has a role in the clean energy 

economy of the future, ensures that we have energy security here 

in the United States, and that we have the maximum amount of 

energy diversity for families throughout the United States. 

Mr. MASSEY. But you wouldn’t dispute those numbers? 

Mr. SMITH. I would say that if we do not move forward on these 

technologies, that we are not going to have a pathway to ensure 

that coal is part of the clean energy economy of the future. This 

is work that we must do to ensure that we do keep this important 

energy source. 

Chairman LUMMIS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. MASSEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I am so sorry, Mr. Massie. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Smith, I want to explore a little bit more about the competitiveness of coal vis-a ́-vis natural gas. Can you tell me the impact 

that the increased efficiency and the technology in terms of extracting natural gas have had on coal’s competitiveness? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thanks for the question. It has had a pretty 

large impact. If we look at availability of natural gas and how it 

has changed over the past decade, you know, a couple data points. 

You know, I grew up in Fort Worth, Texas, as Mr. Veasey mentioned, the geographic mid center of the Barnett shale. When I 

grew up there, there was absolutely no gas production or very, very 

little, and now it has been an absolute boom. Prices for natural gas 

were, you know, creeping into the double digits at one point. They 

bottomed out at somewhere around $2 last year. And so as you 

have that large decrease in the price for natural gas, it makes— 

it brings another option for American consumers, and we think 

that is generally positive. 

Mr. TAKANO. I mean, would it be fair to say that the viability of 

natural gas has become a war on coal? 

Mr. SMITH. I would—— 

Mr. TAKANO. I am being a little facetious there. I am just saying 

that it seems like the market forces have more to do with coal’s 

struggling than Administration policy. 

Mr. SMITH. Markets have a lot to do with it, and it is also part 

of the rationale why we have to be working very closely with industry to make sure that we are working together to develop these 

technologies to make sure that coal remains relevant. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, let us talk a little more about coal versus natural gas. I mean, what makes natural gas such a more compelling 

source of energy on the fossil fuel side? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I would dispute the, I guess, categorization of 

more compelling because we think that energy diversity is very important and that in all-of-the-above, we have to make sure that we 

are using all of our energy sources. But I would say that natural 
112 

gas has the benefit of having half of the CO2 impact, and right now 

it is much more affordable than it was just five years ago. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you for that. I mean, I don’t mean to cast— 

so it just seems to me, just looking at the Administration’s policies, 

that the expenditures that it is seeking to make to—it looks like 

it is trying to make coal competitive. I mean, I would characterize 

the Administration’s policies as not a war on coal but an attempt 

to make coal competitive with other sources of energy so we have— 

because it is plentiful in our country. It is something in our back 

pocket that we can develop potentially in the future for energy 

independence. 

Mr. SMITH. We believe that energy diversity is a very important 

part of the all-of-the-above strategy. Coal creates a lot of jobs, it 

creates a lot of economic benefits in those parts of the country in 

which coal production is important. We firmly believe that we are 

going—the clean energy economy of the future is going to be a carbon-constrained world, and the only way that we can ensure that 

there is a role for all of our energy sources, which is going to be 

good for our economy, good for our energy security, is to move forward with research and development to ensure that we are doing 

something about the problem that we have with coal, which is, it 

is a major emitter of CO2. That is the challenge that we have to 

rise to, and that is the heart of our collaboration with industry, to 

move forward on these technologies. 

Mr. TAKANO. So the way I—so I see—thank you for your comment. I think the policy of the Administration is really an attempt 

to be supportive of coal, to keep it as a viable source of energy in 

the future because it is so plentiful in our country. It will help us 

with energy independence, and it truly does contribute to the allof-the-above strategy. 

Mr. SMITH. I think that would be an accurate characterization of 

what our intent is. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and yield four minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Chris, good to see you. I haven’t seen you since you were down 

in Port Arthur at the opening of that plant. You said in your conversation with Congressman Neugebauer that you would categorically say it is not true that the Administration was waging a war 

on coal, but let me talk about that very fundamental question of 

the future of coal in America as it relates to President Obama’s 

policies. 

During his first campaign, the President famously said that his 

objective was to bankrupt anyone that tried to build a coal-fired 

power plant. Since that time, the President has worked hard to 

deny he was ‘‘waging a war’’ on coal. However, after the President 

announced he intends to aggressively pursue new climate regulations last month, in a moment of candor, one of his key advisors 

said, and I am quoting, ‘‘Politically, the White House is hesitant to 

say they are having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on 

coal is exactly what is needed.’’ Now, that was one of the President’s advisors. 
113 

So my question to you, Chris, and I have got a list here for you, 

is what is the Administration doing? Is it much more important 

than what the President and advisors are saying? Do they say one 

thing and do another? And let me just say, consider this list of the 

recent pending regulations affecting coal. Number one: carbon regulations—I think my colleague down here, Mr. Massie, talked to 

you about it—on new coal power plants, carbon regulations on existing coal power plants, utility MACT with EPA estimated compliance costs of $10 billion, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which 

I know you are familiar with, BACT, or Best Available Control 

Technology, rules for greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter 

regulations, section 316(b) rule concerning cooling water intake, 

and the list goes on and on and on. Effluent limitation regulations 

costing between $200 million and $900 million per year, new EPA 

regional haze requirements, new EPA monitoring—excuse me— 

mountaintop mining rules, Department of Interior stream buffer 

zone regulations, and forthcoming ozone regulations which are projected to be the most costly regulation in the history of the U.S. 

government, most recently estimated by not your agency but the 

EPA to cost $90 billion annually. And yet we say that the President’s Administration, with all due respect to my colleague from 

California, says that the gas market has waged a war on coal. That 

is the free market and American entrepreneurs will take that free 

market and they will make that work. They will make that adjustment. Consumers will respond by buying those products. But it is 

a fact, in my opinion, that this Administration has a war on coal. 

In fact, there is a YouTube video out on him where he was campaigning and he said under his energy plan, electricity prices 

would of necessity skyrocket. And I am sorry, I am out of time. 

You say that your mission is to make sure that America has 

clean, affordable energy. You say the future is a carbon-constrained 

world. But don’t you think that given what I just said is happening, the only thing that is going to be constrained is America’s 

economy and our world competitiveness? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, Congressman. There is a lot there 

so I will try to comment, I guess, on the—— 

Mr. WEBER. You have got lots of time, 28 seconds. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Great. Well, last month I saw you were down 

in Port Arthur in your district where we were doing a ribbon cutting for the Air Products project, which I think was mentioned by 

one of the panelists. I think that is the—I mean, we can talk about 

who said what in an unattributed article but if you look at what 

we have actually done, particularly here within the Department of 

Energy, particular our research and development projects, we are 

taking concrete actions to ensure that coal remains relevant. Market forces are going to do what they do. Certainly the emergence 

of natural gas has had a big impact on coal. The technological innovations around shale gas have pushed natural gas prices down. We 

think it is important that as we go forward that we are making the 

research, we are putting the research in place to ensure that coal 

does continue to have a role. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you very much. I am sorry. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WEBER. I yield back. 
114 

Chairman LUMMIS. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Hall, chairman emeritus of this Committee. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you yesterday for your good questioning and answering of the EPA people 

here. I think you put them in their place properly. 

I want to just touch on the climate change research causation 

that was inquired. I think Mr. Smith quickly said yes when he 

thought that it was people that had caused it. Causation. I just— 

you know, we were told 12 years ago that it was going to be halfway or 12 feet up on the Statue of Liberty, and it is less than a 

foot up on the Statue of Liberty. All kinds of warnings and people 

coming before us being paid a lot to come here to testify that scared 

us to death. And just like going to the moon. We are going to go 

to the moon but we are not going to the moon until the people can 

go to the grocery store, and on global warming, we better well be 

aware that we are not getting any help from anybody hardly in the 

world on that. We are doing it ourselves, and for what little has 

been done, we don’t know whether people caused it or not. We have 

spent $34 to $38 billion for the small steps that have been taken. 

I think before you answer yes to something like that, you ought to 

know the causation and what it has cost the taxpayers to get what 

little we have got there, and I hope the record will reflect that. 

Ms. Greenwald, I know you, and I have served with you and admired you always. I can’t remember if you were a Republican or 

a Democrat, though, when you were here. 

Ms. GREENWALD. Do I have to say? 

Mr. HALL. No, you don’t have to. I just remember that we worked 

on the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Energy Policy Act, and 

since then we passed another landmark energy policy, 2005 Energy 

Policy Act, and you have seen the development of new technologies 

in your position. Rather than government mandates, what are the 

most effective methods of advancing energy technologies and efficiencies when we have a President Obama with his mandates, and 

he has not just got a war on coal, he has a war on energy. Could 

you give me some kind of an answer to that? 

Ms. GREENWALD. Well, we believe that to get clean energy 

sources and energy efficiency into the marketplace requires a combination of policy and making sure that the market can work. So 

that is why we advocate for flexible policies and incentives so that 

you can set targets and requirements, but you leave to the private 

sector as much as possible the ability to make choices so that they 

pick the best technologies that can meet your environmental—— 

Mr. HALL. We need to be aware of it and abreast of it and never 

forget it and looking at it every day, but we need to be reasonable 

about what we have to spend with no help from people that ought 

to be assisting us. Have you answered my question? I think you 

have. 

I will use the rest of my time. I have about 37 more seconds to 

go here. I am a coal—I am from Texas and I am a fossil fuels and 

oil and gas guy but I have seen coal operation make significant investments and progress in advancing clean air emission controls 

and employing advanced technology, so I am heavy on coal and I 

think that we really—this is an important meeting, and I thank all 

of you for your service. I yield back my five, four, three, two, one, 
115 

time. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for your good work 

yesterday. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

We made it. The votes have been called on the Floor of the 

House, and everyone was very cooperative so everyone got to participate in this hearing today. We thank the witnesses so much for 

your valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. 

Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you, 

and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written 

questions from Members. We will look forward to your responses 

to those questions that you may be receiving shortly. 

Before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record two items. First, a letter signed by 23 Members of Congress, 

including me, to President Obama on July 22nd expressing our concern about the implementation of the New Source Performance 

Standards addressing greenhouse gas emissions for new and existing power plants. And secondly, two charts from DOE’s International Energy Outlook, which was just released this morning 

showing the forecast for global coal demand, which is projected to 

increase by 39 percent in the next 20 years. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman LUMMIS. Obviously, those charts indicate that the subject of today’s hearing is tremendously relevant, and the challenges 

exist for the technology that you espoused in your testimony, Mr. 

Collins. Ms. Greenwald. We look forward to your continued work, 

Mr. Yamagata, as well as the Department of Energy’s continued 

work on fossil fuel technologies. 

The witnesses are excused with our deep gratitude, and this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(117) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
118 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Chris Smith 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 

Responses by Mr. Ben Yamagata 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 

Responses by Mr. Don Collins 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

(153) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
154 

SUBMITTED LETTER FOR THE RECORD BY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CHAIRMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS
155 
156 
157 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK CHARTS

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS
158 

Æ